20. SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C.

CABILES

FACTS: Repsondent Joy C. Cabiles (Cabiles) was recruited by petitioner Sameer Overseas
Placement Agency (Sameer) as quality control job in Taiwan with a monthly salary of
NT$15,360. Sameer required her to pay a placement fee of P70,000 when she signed the
employment contract.

When she was already in Taiwan, she was asked to work as a cutter, instead of the promised
quality control job. Thereafter, her employer, Wacoal, informed Sammer that she was terminated
and that “she should immediately report yo their office to get her salary and passport”. Joy stated
that she only received NT$9,000 because Wacoal deducted NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to
Manila.

Sameer stated that her termination was due to her inefficieny, negligence in her duties and failure
to comply with the work requirements of her employer.

Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the twin requirements of notice and hearing applies
strictly only when the employment is within the Phiilppines and that these need not be strictly
observed in cases of international mareitme or overseas employment.

Cabales filed a comlaint for illegal dismissal to the Labor Arbiter. LA dismissed the complaint
stating that her complaint was based in mere allegations.

NLRC reversed the decision and declared that Joy was illegally dismissed. It reiterated the
doctrine that the burden of proof to show that the dismissal was based on a just or valid cause
belongs to the employer. It found that Sameer failed to prove that here were just causes for
termination. CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not Cabiles was legally dismissed (NO) and whether or not she afforded due
process (NO)

RULING: NO. Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes of termination by the
employer. Thus:

Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the
following causes:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work;

(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;

(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any
immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and

(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

The burden of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer. "The employer
must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable
cause." 70 Failure to show that there was valid or just cause for termination would necessarily
mean that the dismissal was illegal. 71

To show that dismissal resulting from inefficiency in work is valid, it must be shown that: 1) the
employer has set standards of conduct and workmanship against which the employee will be
judged; 2) the standards of conduct and workmanship must have been communicated tothe
employee; and 3) the communication was made at a reasonable time prior to the employee’s
performance assessment.

In this case, petitioner merely alleged that respondent failed to comply with her foreign
employer’s work requirements and was inefficient in her work. 74 No evidence was shown to
support such allegations. Petitioner did not even bother to specify what requirements were not
met, what efficiency standards were violated, or what particular acts of respondent constituted
inefficiency.

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to show that there was just cause for causing Joy’s
dismissal. The employer, Wacoal, also failed to accord her due process of law.

While the law acknowledges the plight and vulnerability of workers, it does not "authorize the
oppression or self-destruction of the employer." 62 Management prerogative is recognized in law
and in our jurisprudence.

This prerogative, however, should not be abused. It is "tempered with the employee’s right to
security of tenure." 63 Workers are entitled to substantive and procedural due process before
termination. They may not be removed from employment without a valid or just cause as
determined by law and without going through the proper procedure.

The provisions of the Constitution as well as the Labor Code which afford protection to labor
apply to Filipino employees whether working within the Philippines or abroad. Moreover, the
principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is made) governs in this
jurisdiction. In the present case, it is not disputed that the Contract of Employment entered into
by and between petitioners and private respondent was
executed here in the Philippines with the approval of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA). Hence, the Labor Code together with its implementing rules and
regulations and other laws affecting labor apply in this case.